![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Re the addition of material on the basis of " ChurchMilitant.tv" -- as a first step, can you please indicate a time during the video where Sungenis says the things you are summarising in your content addition? I will then seek advice at RSN as to whether this is a reliable source. thanks. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This statement that was recently added does not pass Wiki muster: "Sungenis claimed that by removing the name "Catholic" from his organization he was obeying his bishop's enforcement of Catholic Canon Law #216 and preserving his apostolate." The source cited is Sungenis' own article, "Anatomy of a Smear Campaign", published at his own website.
The wiki rules for biographies of living persons say the following: "Using the subject as a self-published source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving;it does not involve claims about third parties" Since the material from Sungenis' own self-published source involves a claim about a third party (his bishop), it's not allowable. PAGauden ( talk) 07:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a claim about Bishop Rhoades directing Sungenis to stop using the word "Catholic" in his organization's name. However my edit summary here was wrong - it is indeed in the Washington Post article (His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews and made him stop using the word "Catholic" in his organization's name.) However, it seems that the Washington Post is misunderstanding what was said - the actual direction (see here) was
That is, if Sugnenis didn't comply, then he would direct that the name "Catholic" not be used. So it was a conditional directive, and I'm not sure the second directive was ever carried out. St Anselm ( talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Another attempt today to remove this material. In case things are not clear enough from the edit summary: the material in question is supported directly by the source, which says "His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews and made him stop using the word "Catholic" in his organisation's name". It's really quite simple. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am making a new argument. Although I am considering the option of going back to my original argument too because I found another source from 2010 [Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies and Corrections, CAI Publishing, Inc. (2010)]. It appears that our sources are conflicting with each other. Fr. Harrison article/ Sungenis' book and the WP article about the Catechism/Discover Magazine blog post:
(Quote)Question #1: Robert, various people claim that you have defied your bishop. They say that he ordered you not to talk about the Jews but that you ignored his order. Is this true? R. Sungenis: I have not defied any order that my bishop gave me. Because the bishop (Kevin C. Rhoades) and I have a difference of opinion on certain Jewish matters, and because my opponents waged a letter-writing campaign to the bishop complaining about my Jewish writings, at one point my bishop requested that I not write about Jewish issues, he did not order me to do so. The only canonical stipulation he added in his letter was that he had the right to force me to remove the name “Catholic” from my apostolate’s title if I did not comply with his request, since canon law states that an apostolate must first get the permission of the bishop to use the name “Catholic.” Prior to this, I had used “Catholic” for the three years (2004-2007) that the bishop had been in my diocese and which he knew since I had exchanged letters with the chancery. The bishop also invited me to discuss the matter with his vicar general, Fr. William King, and thus I arranged a meeting at the chancery in July 2007. At that meeting, Fr. King said it was not the intention of the bishop to prohibit me from writing on Jewish issues, as long as I used the proper tone. At this point, I did not see anything with which to disagree. After the meeting, I voluntarily removed all my Jewish-titled material from the CAI website with the intention of changing the tone of my articles. In the interim, I alerted CAI patrons to my meeting with the bishop and I apologized for anything I had written previously that had an improper tone. I also included a summary of CAI’s theological positions on the Jews, all of which I believed was written with the proper tone. In August 2007, Fr. King wrote to me and said that the bishop requested that I take down the article since it disagreed with some of the bishop’s personal views. I wrote back to Fr. King and complained about what I began to sense was censorship without due process being waged against me by the bishop, for the tone of the article in question was obviously polite and respectful toward the Jews. Apparently, there
was more to the bishop’s “request” than appeared on the surface, and this was confirmed by several instances in Fr. King’s letter that revealed it was primarily doctrinal issues that were the bishop’s chief concern, and that “tone” was, perhaps, being used only as a euphemism for the bishop’s real concern. I had a solid inkling what these “doctrinal” issues concerned, since at the July 2007 meeting, Fr. King said that he and the bishop (and by implication, the Catholic Church at large) “no longer believed in supersessionism.” Fr. King’s August 2007 letter confirmed my suspicion, since it mentioned these same items. All in all, the bishop was requesting that I accede to his and Fr. King’s views that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New Covenant; the Jews are still the Chosen People, and other related matters. I then wrote a 15-page letter to Fr. King and the bishop showing from Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium that supersessionism was, indeed, a Catholic doctrine, and that the bishop was wrong in trying to force me to reject it by threatening that he would remove the name “Catholic” from my apostolate. Knowing that the bishop was fond of John Paul II, I even included a section showing that when John Paul II said in 1981 that the “Old covenant was not revoked,” he was not, according to the pope’s speech in 1986, referring to the Mosaic covenant, but the Abrahamic covenant (which has now become the New Covenant). But I also added that, in order to keep the peace, I would voluntarily change the name of our apostolate to Bellarmine Theological Forum. Neither Fr. King nor the bishop replied to that letter, and at that point our communication came to a close. Hence, with no further requests or doctrinal argumentation from the bishop, I determined that the article in question would remain on our website and that I would continue writing on Jewish issues. I would not, however, compromise the doctrinal integrity of the Catholic Church by acceding to the bishop and Fr. King’s anti-supersessionist views, even though I would diligently try to voice my objections with the proper “tone.” There the situation stands.(End Quote)
(Quote)Question #2: Robert, various people claim that you have falsely accused your bishop of holding the heretical view that Jews still have valid and legal possession of the Old Covenant. What is the truth of this matter from your perspective? R. Sungenis: Although I don’t have indisputable proof that my bishop holds to this heresy since I have not personally talked with him about this issue, the
circumstantial evidence is so strong that I am compelled to include him as holding to this erroneous view of the Old Covenant unless I receive clarification from him that he does not hold to it. There are three basic reasons for this: (1) in our meeting of July 29, 2007 at the bishop’s office in Harrisburg, the vicar general, Fr. William King, said to me and Mr. Herron: “we don’t believe in supersessionism any longer.” In that meeting, Fr. King assured me that the use of “we” referred to himself and the bishop, since Fr. King assured me that he was “deputized by the bishop” for that specific meeting and that he “spoke for the bishop.” (2) in a recent email of July 15, 2008 that Fr. King privately sent to the priests and deacons of the Harrisburg diocese (but which I received a copy through a friend), he wrote the following words: “Dr. Robert Sungenis…personal opinions…including…supercession [sic] of the Old Testament Covenant, stand apart from (and in discord with) authentic Catholic teaching on these subjects.” Supersessionism is the doctrine which says that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant, such that the Old Covenant is no longer valid for the Jews. Hence, if Fr. King denies supersessionism, he denies that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New and he believes that the Old Covenant is still valid for the Jews. Since he previously said he “speaks for the bishop” on these matters, and since I don’t think the bishop would allow Fr. King to send such an email to the priests of the Harrisburg diocese unless he concurred with it, I can only assume that the bishop believes the same as Fr. King about the Old Covenant. I have received nothing from either Fr. King or the bishop that says Fr. King no longer speaks for the bishop on this issue. When I wrote to the bishop and Fr. King a few weeks later asking them for a response to Fr. King’s July 15 2008 email that I had in my possession (and of which I showed them a copy), Fr. King wrote back and told me he was not going to reply due to an implication that I would bring a canonical lawsuit against him. I wrote back to Fr. King and told him I had no intentions of suing him, but I wanted him to write another letter to all the same priests and deacons of the Harrisburg diocese apologizing for slandering me and for propagating an erroneous theological idea to them. A copy of the letter to Fr. King was also sent to Bishop Rhoades. To this day, neither Fr. King nor Bishop Rhoades have replied.
(3) When the bishop was interviewed in a questionnaire by Michael Forrest in February 2008, the bishop gave ambiguous answers about the Old Covenant. Instead of directly clearing up the matter and saying that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and that the Jews no longer had valid possession of the Old Covenant, the bishop stated the following: “I do not believe that the Jewish people have their own independent salvific covenant with God, apart from Jesus Christ.” The problem with this statement is that it allows the Jews to have the Old Covenant as long as it is not “apart from Christ.” A similar problem occurred in the interview when the bishop answered a question concerning page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. The sentence on page 131 says: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” In August 2008, the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate this sentence from the catechism, obviously because it was erroneous. But Bishop Rhoades’ answer to Forrest does not seem to agree. Instead, he reiterated the ambiguous phrases “outside of Christ” and “apart from Christ” and did not say that the sentence on page 131 was erroneous or should be excised from the catechism. He wrote: I do not interpret anything on page 131 of the U.S. Catechism for Adults to mean that the Jewish people (or any group) have their own independent saving path to God, outside of Jesus Christ. I can see how the statement that “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them” might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ. Although I would like to give the bishop the benefit of any doubt in his above statement, I find it hard to do so in light of #1 and #2 above in which Fr. King insists that, in denying supersessionism, he is speaking directly for the bishop; as well as the bishop’s silence when he was directly confronted with Fr. King’s denial of supersessionism. So, to me it seems to be a logical conclusion that in the bishop’s above answer he leaves room for denying supersessionism since, according to the implication of his answer, the Jews can possess the Old
Covenant just as long as it is not “outside of Christ,” or that the Jews could be saved through the Old Covenant, as long as it is not “apart from Christ.” If the bishop does not believe that the Jews still have possession of the Old Covenant, with or without Christ; and if he does not deny the doctrine of supersessionism such that Fr. King no longer speaks for him or never has, then I would think the bishop is required to make this a matter of public record to all interested parties, including me and Mr. Forrest. Until that time, I cannot help but believe that my bishop holds the same doctrinal position as Fr. King, that is, that supersessionism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church and that the Jews still have valid possession of the Old Covenant. The bishop could have easily sent me a response to the July 15, 2008 email distancing himself from Fr. King’s denial of supersessionism, but he did not do so. Hence, I must take his silence as an implicit agreement with Fr. King’s assertion.(End Quote)
Now, with regard to my new argument. You said that we should not get into a "he said - he said" because the facts clearly support Sungenis' opponents. Well, we had a similar situation where the "he said - he said" worked. Sungenis' opponents accused him of anti-semitism. The facts appeared to clearly support his opponents accusations. Yet, Sungenis was allowed to defend himself. Now, we have Sungenis' organization having the name Catholic removed (whether by force or voluntary). His opponents claim that it was removed for justifiable reasons. The facts appear to clearly support his opponents. Yet, why not allow Sungenis to defend himself? Why not allow a third party to defend him? Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 15:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, what I wanted to include was this:
(Quote)"R. Sungenis: By June 2008 the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate the heretical sentence about the Mosaic covenant from the US catechism that I, and only I, had pointed out to them and the rest of the world. After that, Rhoades’ campaign against me dwindled, but not before he forced me to take the name “Catholic” from my website because I dared disagree with his heretical doctrine."(End Quote)
It is already in the RS page. The only problem is that it has been summarized poorly. However, I will take your advice and post it on the WP:RSN Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 15:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me for misunderstanding you. Hopefully, I understand you now. The problem with your source is that it is not a reliable third-party source. The author (Phil Plait) of the Discover Magazine blog article does not talk about the "Catholic removal" issue. He talks about Geocentrism. You are relying on a reader's blog post for your source and according to Wikipedia rules you cant do that. See Wikipedia:Verifiability:
(Quote) Newspaper and magazine blogs
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.(End Quote)
Also, you mentioned that you didn't see anything I sent you indicating that Rhoades did not make him remove the "Catholic" from his organization. Well, I did. Sungenis said he voluntarily changed the name. Fr. Harrison said the same thing. This was the conflict of sources I spoke about:
Sungenis' book(Quote)But I also added that, in order to keep the peace, I would voluntarily change the name of our apostolate to Bellarmine Theological Forum. Neither Fr. King nor the bishop replied to that letter, and at that point our communication came to a close. Hence, with no further requests or doctrinal argumentation from the bishop, I determined that the article in question would remain on our website and that I would continue writing on Jewish issues.(End Quote)
Harrison article(Quote): Taken together, the above four considerations present a strong presumption that in fact even the Bishop of Harrisburg himself does not consider Dr. Sungenis to be bound now – that is, ever since he voluntarily removed the word "Catholic" from the title of his website last year – by any obligation to remain publicly silent on Judaism and the Jewish people.9(End Quote)
Finally, I wanted to say that we do not need to mention that Sungenis accused his Bishop of heresy since it seems like you want to protect his reputation. That's good. We should all try to avoid damaging a living persons reputation. My recommendation would be to point out in the RS page that one of our sources defends his status as a member of Catholic Church. A reader could easily misinterpret the removal of the name Catholic from his organization to mean that he(as an individual) is no longer Catholic. Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You can't use a source that Wikipedia explicitly states can't be used. So, this excuse that the blog post left by a reader named RS will stay on the RS page because I and one another editor won't stop arguing with you is a moot point. This source needs to be removed regardless of what our position is about the "Catholic removal issue". I will leave the WP source up so that we can discuss it later, but this blog post left by a reader needs to go. If you are looking for a more reliable source from 2010 than a blog post left by a reader named RS, then I would recommend Sungenis' book from 2010. You can find the quotes from his book in our discussion above.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability:
(Quote) Newspaper and magazine blogs
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.(End Quote) Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been searching for more information for the geocentrism section because a great deal has been written on that topic from solid sources over the past few months. Unfortunately, it seems that most all of it is negative. I've at least added some additional information about the involvement of Michio Kaku and Max Tegmark in The Principle. But if additional information can be found, that would be helpful to the article, imo. PAGauden ( talk) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Sungenis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
On May 16, 2016, I added information to the biography section. My edit was undone with the comment "not useful to the article". I strongly disagree. Just because one source characterized CIU as a diploma mill does not meant the school is. The resources I provided show that CIU has requirements similar to many universities. The main difference is that it is not government accredited. The country where CIU is located does not have stipulations for government accreditation. I was providing this information to make the article more balanced. Well written articles should provide opposing views that allow the reader to decide for themselves. I did not remove the original comment. I only added the information to provide a balanced view. SuzanneCampbell ( talk) 20:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Re the addition of material on the basis of " ChurchMilitant.tv" -- as a first step, can you please indicate a time during the video where Sungenis says the things you are summarising in your content addition? I will then seek advice at RSN as to whether this is a reliable source. thanks. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This statement that was recently added does not pass Wiki muster: "Sungenis claimed that by removing the name "Catholic" from his organization he was obeying his bishop's enforcement of Catholic Canon Law #216 and preserving his apostolate." The source cited is Sungenis' own article, "Anatomy of a Smear Campaign", published at his own website.
The wiki rules for biographies of living persons say the following: "Using the subject as a self-published source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving;it does not involve claims about third parties" Since the material from Sungenis' own self-published source involves a claim about a third party (his bishop), it's not allowable. PAGauden ( talk) 07:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a claim about Bishop Rhoades directing Sungenis to stop using the word "Catholic" in his organization's name. However my edit summary here was wrong - it is indeed in the Washington Post article (His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews and made him stop using the word "Catholic" in his organization's name.) However, it seems that the Washington Post is misunderstanding what was said - the actual direction (see here) was
That is, if Sugnenis didn't comply, then he would direct that the name "Catholic" not be used. So it was a conditional directive, and I'm not sure the second directive was ever carried out. St Anselm ( talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Another attempt today to remove this material. In case things are not clear enough from the edit summary: the material in question is supported directly by the source, which says "His local bishop, Kevin Rhoades of Harrisburg, has demanded that Sungenis stop writing about Jews and made him stop using the word "Catholic" in his organisation's name". It's really quite simple. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am making a new argument. Although I am considering the option of going back to my original argument too because I found another source from 2010 [Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies and Corrections, CAI Publishing, Inc. (2010)]. It appears that our sources are conflicting with each other. Fr. Harrison article/ Sungenis' book and the WP article about the Catechism/Discover Magazine blog post:
(Quote)Question #1: Robert, various people claim that you have defied your bishop. They say that he ordered you not to talk about the Jews but that you ignored his order. Is this true? R. Sungenis: I have not defied any order that my bishop gave me. Because the bishop (Kevin C. Rhoades) and I have a difference of opinion on certain Jewish matters, and because my opponents waged a letter-writing campaign to the bishop complaining about my Jewish writings, at one point my bishop requested that I not write about Jewish issues, he did not order me to do so. The only canonical stipulation he added in his letter was that he had the right to force me to remove the name “Catholic” from my apostolate’s title if I did not comply with his request, since canon law states that an apostolate must first get the permission of the bishop to use the name “Catholic.” Prior to this, I had used “Catholic” for the three years (2004-2007) that the bishop had been in my diocese and which he knew since I had exchanged letters with the chancery. The bishop also invited me to discuss the matter with his vicar general, Fr. William King, and thus I arranged a meeting at the chancery in July 2007. At that meeting, Fr. King said it was not the intention of the bishop to prohibit me from writing on Jewish issues, as long as I used the proper tone. At this point, I did not see anything with which to disagree. After the meeting, I voluntarily removed all my Jewish-titled material from the CAI website with the intention of changing the tone of my articles. In the interim, I alerted CAI patrons to my meeting with the bishop and I apologized for anything I had written previously that had an improper tone. I also included a summary of CAI’s theological positions on the Jews, all of which I believed was written with the proper tone. In August 2007, Fr. King wrote to me and said that the bishop requested that I take down the article since it disagreed with some of the bishop’s personal views. I wrote back to Fr. King and complained about what I began to sense was censorship without due process being waged against me by the bishop, for the tone of the article in question was obviously polite and respectful toward the Jews. Apparently, there
was more to the bishop’s “request” than appeared on the surface, and this was confirmed by several instances in Fr. King’s letter that revealed it was primarily doctrinal issues that were the bishop’s chief concern, and that “tone” was, perhaps, being used only as a euphemism for the bishop’s real concern. I had a solid inkling what these “doctrinal” issues concerned, since at the July 2007 meeting, Fr. King said that he and the bishop (and by implication, the Catholic Church at large) “no longer believed in supersessionism.” Fr. King’s August 2007 letter confirmed my suspicion, since it mentioned these same items. All in all, the bishop was requesting that I accede to his and Fr. King’s views that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New Covenant; the Jews are still the Chosen People, and other related matters. I then wrote a 15-page letter to Fr. King and the bishop showing from Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium that supersessionism was, indeed, a Catholic doctrine, and that the bishop was wrong in trying to force me to reject it by threatening that he would remove the name “Catholic” from my apostolate. Knowing that the bishop was fond of John Paul II, I even included a section showing that when John Paul II said in 1981 that the “Old covenant was not revoked,” he was not, according to the pope’s speech in 1986, referring to the Mosaic covenant, but the Abrahamic covenant (which has now become the New Covenant). But I also added that, in order to keep the peace, I would voluntarily change the name of our apostolate to Bellarmine Theological Forum. Neither Fr. King nor the bishop replied to that letter, and at that point our communication came to a close. Hence, with no further requests or doctrinal argumentation from the bishop, I determined that the article in question would remain on our website and that I would continue writing on Jewish issues. I would not, however, compromise the doctrinal integrity of the Catholic Church by acceding to the bishop and Fr. King’s anti-supersessionist views, even though I would diligently try to voice my objections with the proper “tone.” There the situation stands.(End Quote)
(Quote)Question #2: Robert, various people claim that you have falsely accused your bishop of holding the heretical view that Jews still have valid and legal possession of the Old Covenant. What is the truth of this matter from your perspective? R. Sungenis: Although I don’t have indisputable proof that my bishop holds to this heresy since I have not personally talked with him about this issue, the
circumstantial evidence is so strong that I am compelled to include him as holding to this erroneous view of the Old Covenant unless I receive clarification from him that he does not hold to it. There are three basic reasons for this: (1) in our meeting of July 29, 2007 at the bishop’s office in Harrisburg, the vicar general, Fr. William King, said to me and Mr. Herron: “we don’t believe in supersessionism any longer.” In that meeting, Fr. King assured me that the use of “we” referred to himself and the bishop, since Fr. King assured me that he was “deputized by the bishop” for that specific meeting and that he “spoke for the bishop.” (2) in a recent email of July 15, 2008 that Fr. King privately sent to the priests and deacons of the Harrisburg diocese (but which I received a copy through a friend), he wrote the following words: “Dr. Robert Sungenis…personal opinions…including…supercession [sic] of the Old Testament Covenant, stand apart from (and in discord with) authentic Catholic teaching on these subjects.” Supersessionism is the doctrine which says that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant, such that the Old Covenant is no longer valid for the Jews. Hence, if Fr. King denies supersessionism, he denies that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New and he believes that the Old Covenant is still valid for the Jews. Since he previously said he “speaks for the bishop” on these matters, and since I don’t think the bishop would allow Fr. King to send such an email to the priests of the Harrisburg diocese unless he concurred with it, I can only assume that the bishop believes the same as Fr. King about the Old Covenant. I have received nothing from either Fr. King or the bishop that says Fr. King no longer speaks for the bishop on this issue. When I wrote to the bishop and Fr. King a few weeks later asking them for a response to Fr. King’s July 15 2008 email that I had in my possession (and of which I showed them a copy), Fr. King wrote back and told me he was not going to reply due to an implication that I would bring a canonical lawsuit against him. I wrote back to Fr. King and told him I had no intentions of suing him, but I wanted him to write another letter to all the same priests and deacons of the Harrisburg diocese apologizing for slandering me and for propagating an erroneous theological idea to them. A copy of the letter to Fr. King was also sent to Bishop Rhoades. To this day, neither Fr. King nor Bishop Rhoades have replied.
(3) When the bishop was interviewed in a questionnaire by Michael Forrest in February 2008, the bishop gave ambiguous answers about the Old Covenant. Instead of directly clearing up the matter and saying that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and that the Jews no longer had valid possession of the Old Covenant, the bishop stated the following: “I do not believe that the Jewish people have their own independent salvific covenant with God, apart from Jesus Christ.” The problem with this statement is that it allows the Jews to have the Old Covenant as long as it is not “apart from Christ.” A similar problem occurred in the interview when the bishop answered a question concerning page 131 of the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. The sentence on page 131 says: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” In August 2008, the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate this sentence from the catechism, obviously because it was erroneous. But Bishop Rhoades’ answer to Forrest does not seem to agree. Instead, he reiterated the ambiguous phrases “outside of Christ” and “apart from Christ” and did not say that the sentence on page 131 was erroneous or should be excised from the catechism. He wrote: I do not interpret anything on page 131 of the U.S. Catechism for Adults to mean that the Jewish people (or any group) have their own independent saving path to God, outside of Jesus Christ. I can see how the statement that “the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them” might be misunderstood. I would interpret it to mean that the Jewish people retain a special relationship to God because of the Old Covenant, but I would not interpret it to mean that the Jewish people can be saved through the Old Covenant apart from Christ. Although I would like to give the bishop the benefit of any doubt in his above statement, I find it hard to do so in light of #1 and #2 above in which Fr. King insists that, in denying supersessionism, he is speaking directly for the bishop; as well as the bishop’s silence when he was directly confronted with Fr. King’s denial of supersessionism. So, to me it seems to be a logical conclusion that in the bishop’s above answer he leaves room for denying supersessionism since, according to the implication of his answer, the Jews can possess the Old
Covenant just as long as it is not “outside of Christ,” or that the Jews could be saved through the Old Covenant, as long as it is not “apart from Christ.” If the bishop does not believe that the Jews still have possession of the Old Covenant, with or without Christ; and if he does not deny the doctrine of supersessionism such that Fr. King no longer speaks for him or never has, then I would think the bishop is required to make this a matter of public record to all interested parties, including me and Mr. Forrest. Until that time, I cannot help but believe that my bishop holds the same doctrinal position as Fr. King, that is, that supersessionism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church and that the Jews still have valid possession of the Old Covenant. The bishop could have easily sent me a response to the July 15, 2008 email distancing himself from Fr. King’s denial of supersessionism, but he did not do so. Hence, I must take his silence as an implicit agreement with Fr. King’s assertion.(End Quote)
Now, with regard to my new argument. You said that we should not get into a "he said - he said" because the facts clearly support Sungenis' opponents. Well, we had a similar situation where the "he said - he said" worked. Sungenis' opponents accused him of anti-semitism. The facts appeared to clearly support his opponents accusations. Yet, Sungenis was allowed to defend himself. Now, we have Sungenis' organization having the name Catholic removed (whether by force or voluntary). His opponents claim that it was removed for justifiable reasons. The facts appear to clearly support his opponents. Yet, why not allow Sungenis to defend himself? Why not allow a third party to defend him? Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 15:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, what I wanted to include was this:
(Quote)"R. Sungenis: By June 2008 the bishops of the United States voted 231 to 14 to eliminate the heretical sentence about the Mosaic covenant from the US catechism that I, and only I, had pointed out to them and the rest of the world. After that, Rhoades’ campaign against me dwindled, but not before he forced me to take the name “Catholic” from my website because I dared disagree with his heretical doctrine."(End Quote)
It is already in the RS page. The only problem is that it has been summarized poorly. However, I will take your advice and post it on the WP:RSN Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 15:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me for misunderstanding you. Hopefully, I understand you now. The problem with your source is that it is not a reliable third-party source. The author (Phil Plait) of the Discover Magazine blog article does not talk about the "Catholic removal" issue. He talks about Geocentrism. You are relying on a reader's blog post for your source and according to Wikipedia rules you cant do that. See Wikipedia:Verifiability:
(Quote) Newspaper and magazine blogs
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.(End Quote)
Also, you mentioned that you didn't see anything I sent you indicating that Rhoades did not make him remove the "Catholic" from his organization. Well, I did. Sungenis said he voluntarily changed the name. Fr. Harrison said the same thing. This was the conflict of sources I spoke about:
Sungenis' book(Quote)But I also added that, in order to keep the peace, I would voluntarily change the name of our apostolate to Bellarmine Theological Forum. Neither Fr. King nor the bishop replied to that letter, and at that point our communication came to a close. Hence, with no further requests or doctrinal argumentation from the bishop, I determined that the article in question would remain on our website and that I would continue writing on Jewish issues.(End Quote)
Harrison article(Quote): Taken together, the above four considerations present a strong presumption that in fact even the Bishop of Harrisburg himself does not consider Dr. Sungenis to be bound now – that is, ever since he voluntarily removed the word "Catholic" from the title of his website last year – by any obligation to remain publicly silent on Judaism and the Jewish people.9(End Quote)
Finally, I wanted to say that we do not need to mention that Sungenis accused his Bishop of heresy since it seems like you want to protect his reputation. That's good. We should all try to avoid damaging a living persons reputation. My recommendation would be to point out in the RS page that one of our sources defends his status as a member of Catholic Church. A reader could easily misinterpret the removal of the name Catholic from his organization to mean that he(as an individual) is no longer Catholic. Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You can't use a source that Wikipedia explicitly states can't be used. So, this excuse that the blog post left by a reader named RS will stay on the RS page because I and one another editor won't stop arguing with you is a moot point. This source needs to be removed regardless of what our position is about the "Catholic removal issue". I will leave the WP source up so that we can discuss it later, but this blog post left by a reader needs to go. If you are looking for a more reliable source from 2010 than a blog post left by a reader named RS, then I would recommend Sungenis' book from 2010. You can find the quotes from his book in our discussion above.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability:
(Quote) Newspaper and magazine blogs
Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.(End Quote) Tachyon1010101010 ( talk) 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been searching for more information for the geocentrism section because a great deal has been written on that topic from solid sources over the past few months. Unfortunately, it seems that most all of it is negative. I've at least added some additional information about the involvement of Michio Kaku and Max Tegmark in The Principle. But if additional information can be found, that would be helpful to the article, imo. PAGauden ( talk) 20:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Sungenis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
On May 16, 2016, I added information to the biography section. My edit was undone with the comment "not useful to the article". I strongly disagree. Just because one source characterized CIU as a diploma mill does not meant the school is. The resources I provided show that CIU has requirements similar to many universities. The main difference is that it is not government accredited. The country where CIU is located does not have stipulations for government accreditation. I was providing this information to make the article more balanced. Well written articles should provide opposing views that allow the reader to decide for themselves. I did not remove the original comment. I only added the information to provide a balanced view. SuzanneCampbell ( talk) 20:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)